DescentBB

Interesting video on Creation v Evolution. I discovered it interestingly enough while doing a completely unrelated search for my thermodynamics professor. He is one of the panelists.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2809350444

You sure you want to start another one of these threads?

Maybe we'll start a pool on how many pages this one will go... my guess is at least four.

I thought you wanted to get away from all the politics, Foil

Bah. I'm pretty sure that video is more than 6000 years old.

Foil wrote:Maybe we'll start a pool on how many pages this one will go... my guess is at least four.

Hmm... I say four, and by near the bottom of the first page we'll start getting into scripture passages.

Kent Hovind is widely considered to be absolutely bonkers by both sides of the debate - even Answers in Genesis and hyper-conservative independent baptist Pensacola Christian College have distanced themselves from him! Not to mention that he got himself thrown in prison for tax evasion and other unsavory practices. I'm not a young-earth creationist but as far as sources go you can probably do a lot better than him.

Pandora wrote:I thought you wanted to get away from all the politics, Foil

Politics, yes. But the subject of origins is one of my "pet issues", and I never seem to be able to avoid getting deep into those threads.

I think he made a good point of at least discrediting the other side as much as scriptures are discredited as being source matyerial for curriculum in classrooms.

The evolutionary side didn't really impress me much by the way they looked caught off guard while he presented everything he had to say with precision, Not that i know of Hovind's credibility (Firewheel) but i think he did a fine job compared to the other 3 guys.

Firewheel wrote:Kent Hovind is widely considered to be absolutely bonkers by both sides of the debate - even Answers in Genesis and hyper-conservative independent baptist Pensacola Christian College have distanced themselves from him! Not to mention that he got himself thrown in prison for tax evasion and other unsavory practices. I'm not a young-earth creationist but as far as sources go you can probably do a lot better than him.

Much of the Christian leadership in this country has gone down the tubes. Why else would they allow gay marriage, and teach a form of creation mixed with evolution? My father (Physics Ph.D.) derives laws and is very heavily involved in bringing the truth to the surface through mathematics and science. However, he has been declined to even speak at some of the events by organizations such as Answers in Genesis. The point is, just like the pharisees when Jesus walked the earth, the Christian leadership has some serious problems.

Kent Hovind sounds and looks very familiar. I think I have some of his videos at home. From a 5 min inspection, I can already give him my approval because he bases his science off the Bible. I'll watch the whole video when I get a chance.

The evolutionary side did not back up anything they said with facts, Rather they tried to use \"mass\" opinion based on the fact that most people believe what those voodoo science guys say because it's so confusing.

Why is it confusing? Because their so-called \"evidence\" makes no sense, It makes no sense because the actual data to back up their claims does not exist.

Hovind did a much better job presenting what he had to work with and even plainly stated that he's basing it on faith, They don't admit to thesame thing because they want the money to back up their deceit and false curriculum.

I didnt watch the video but most people that apply principles of thermodynamics to evolution are doing it wrong.

Thermodynamics says entropy in the universe increases with time, not entropy of a system. The evolution of humans took place in a system. Essentially for the math to work out if humans were to evolve (decrease of entropy) the rest of the universe would have to increase in entropy.

Do you have any evidence proving that the universe has increased in entropy, Or do you need to estimate over billions of years for your theory to work?

If you are interested in the truth, research the 2nd law of thermodynamics

...Here we go...

Jesus Freak wrote:From a 5 min inspection, I can already give him my approval because he bases his science off the Bible.

JF, you're absolutely right that a Christian's belief about origins and the nature of our universe should have their foundations in the Bible, foremost being the belief that God is the original Creator.

The problem is that young-Earth creationists like Hovind and Ken Ham and others are reading their own interpretations into scripture. First and foremost, they have utterly lost the truth of Genesis 1 by reading the passages through their own perspective on science. It's not only that they look at science with an agenda (which causes all kinds of issues), the problem stems from fundamentally bad exegetical interpretation, where nothing is true unless every word has a dual literal meaning.

I know, because I was a young-Earth creationist, myself. I grew up with those beliefs, I know the arguments like the back of my hand. Heck, I even defended them in formal debates in high school. ...But they're wrong, scientifically and theologically.

Behemoth wrote:Do you have any evidence proving that the universe has increased in entropy, Or do you need to estimate over billions of years for your theory to work?

Behe, ccb is quite correct. Entropy (of the entire universe, or any other system) is a fundamental law of physics, and it's observable right now.

ccb056 wrote:Thermodynamics says entropy in the universe increases with time, not entropy of a system. The evolution of humans took place in a system. Essentially for the math to work out if humans were to evolve (decrease of entropy) the rest of the universe would have to increase in entropy.

You're suggesting that different systems have been observed to increase in entropy at different rates? And have any ever been observed to decrease in entropy?

To decrease the entropy of a bowl of soup put it in a freezer.

That didn't answer his question.

Exactly, thanks ccb.

Thorne, Behe... the thing you have to understand about entropy, and why the usual young-Earth argument using it doesn't work, is that there are big differences in local entropies (e.g. open systems like Earth, or a bowl of soup being heated/cooled, etc.) vs. universal / closed-system entropy.

Behemoth wrote:That didn't answer his question.

Yes, it did. Thorne asked for proof of a system where entropy can decrease, and ccb gave him a very simple example of one. It's a fairly good example, too, as it shows how entropy can decrease in a local system.

P.S. For anyone who doesn't understand how cooling a bowl of soup decreases its entropy, I'd suggest just doing a quick Google search. There are some sites which do a fairly good job of putting it in "non-Physicist" terms.

ccb056 wrote:To decrease the entropy of a bowl of soup put it in a freezer.

in that case you are including the freezer as the part of the closed system when considering the change of entropy

(im an engineering major haha... sorry)

but yeah even though entropy is scientifically defined, its changes can be argued

for example, in the case of evolution, lets compare an amoeba to a human being

one argument is that the human being has greater entropy, because it has a far greater complexity than the amoeba (greater complexity can be argued to be = chaos, thus higher entropy)

on the other hand, one can equally argue that the human being has LESS entropy, because entropy can be defined as the process of things to go from a less probable situation to a more probable situation. It can also be argued that complexity = order, thus lower entropy


time for debating

ccb056 wrote:To decrease the entropy of a bowl of soup put it in a freezer.

Look, I don't want to sound like I know what I'm talking about, but I would think that the rate of entropy in your example is actually related to the rate of activity--meaning that it's not truly the rate of entropy, but the rate (speed/amount?) of activity that is changing. Either way, though, they're both slowed, which ultimately doesn't do your argument any good.

Like Behemoth said, though, that doesn't answer the question... at all, really. And if you don't know that's fine with me, but you really have to know in order to make the statements that you made.

QuestionableChaos wrote:but yeah even though entropy is scientifically defined, its changes can be argued...

...entropy can be defined as the process of things to go from a less probable situation to a more probable situation. It can also be argued that complexity = order, thus lower entropy...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...I would think that the rate of entropy in your example is actually related to the rate of activity--meaning that it's not truly the rate of entropy, but the rate (speed/amount?) of activity that is changing. Either way, though, they're both slowed, which ultimately doesn't do your argument any good.

You guys are trying to make points based on some of the common informal definitions of entropy ("complexity", "order", etc.).

Those informal definitions are fine for trying to help people with concepts, but they aren't useful for ccb's soup example.

For that, you need to go to the formal definition, which is based on something measurable: energy. Without getting into detail, it's clear that cooling a bowl of soup decreases it's energy without changing the structure. By definition, that's a decrease in entropy.

And, yes, Chaos, the entropy in the system (the entire freezer, or kitchen if you consider a slightly larger system) may still be increasing. That's exactly the point - local decreases in entropy in an open system can happen, but the overall entropy in a closed system must increase. (Again, note that the Earth is not a closed system, we get tons of energy from the Sun, so its entropy can and does decrease.)

I still see temperature (energy level) as a hangup in the issue, though. Not trying to be stubborn, but let me go back to my point about activity, and suggest that energy = activity (I believe that's accurate). It may be that that's kind of crude, but I think it's adequate for our purposes. Now less entropy from less activity just makes sense, doesn't it?

Now, ... where is the change in entropy?

Hrm, it doesn't look like I am getting emails for responses to threads.

Off to ME 323 (Mechanics of Materials)

I will try and clarify my points in an hour or so.

I guess I'm still getting my head around this. My argument is that the soup in the freezer is an example of a decrease in the increase, or the slowing of the increase in entropy, and not the decrease of entropy (which amounts to a reversal, or order from disorder). But now that I think about it that sounds wrong, because I believe that with the decrease of energy does come a greater degree of order/less randomness.

So what I arrive at is that entropy is a non-issue, because a total lack of randomness still doesn't amount to intelligent information...

(Attemtping to get back on topic)
So if carbon dating can be disproved that easily, Why is it treated as something reliable in dating fossils, sedimentary rock formations, etc.?

ccb056 wrote:Hrm, it doesn't look like I am getting emails for responses to threads.

No, I believe that is exactly the cause of the error messages we've been encountering when we try to post.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...less entropy from less activity [energy] just makes sense, doesn't it?

Now, ... where is the change in entropy?

By definition (the equation relating changes in entropy to changes in heat), the decrease in energy is a decrease in entropy, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.

P.S. I think those informal "layman's" definitions about entropy (in terms of "order/chaos", "complexity", etc.) may be only adding to the confusion here.

I hope it wasn't too painful to watch--I've got it now. Read my more recent reply.

Behemoth wrote:so if carbon dating can be disproved that easily, Why is it treated as something reliable in dating fossils, sedimentary rock formations, etc.?

Heh, the common young-Earth argument "Carbon dating didn't work right for [counterexample object X, usually some piece of odd volanic rock], so it must be a conspiracy to defraud us" used to be one of my favorites back when I was a young-Earth subscriber.

Of course, I really didn't know much about how it works... or dating calibration methods... or the mountain of verified tests... or even that there are well-documented parameters about which objects can be accurated dated and which objects can't (the young-Earth counterexamples always come from the latter in my experience).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I hope it wasn't too painful to watch--I've got it now. Read my more recent reply.

Good! I think entropy is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts about thermodynamics, glad to see you got it - most people don't.

---------

I'm not sure I understand your conclusion, though:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So what I arrive at is that entropy is a non-issue, because a total lack of randomness still doesn't amount to intelligent information...

I thought you had been referring to the argument that entropy precludes evolution...?

I'm back.

Lets look at this problem from an engineering point of view.

1. Draw a picture
In this case our picture will consist of a control volume aka system.
Everything outside the system will be called the environment.

Let's set the control volume to surround our bowl of soup.
Therefore the soup is the system, the rest of the universe is the environment.

2. Governing Equations
Since we are dealing with entropy here, lets define entropy.

dS = dQ / T

dS = time rate of change of entropy
dQ = time rate of change of energy
T = temperature (absolute scale)

3. Assumptions
Since we are putting this soup in a freezer, we might need to know some information about that.
Lets assume the freezer uses 100 watts of power (time rate of change of energy)
Lets also assume the freezer has a thermal efficiency of 0.5 (for every watt of power it consumes, it delivers 0.5 watts of cooling)
Lets also assume we just put the soup in the freezer, and the soup is hotter than the air in the freezer


4. Solve
Since the freezer is cooling the soup, transfering the heat from inside the soup to outside the soup, we know what dQ is.

dQ = -100 watts * 50% = -50 watts
Note, the reason we use -100 watts is because we are cooling the soup, if we were heating the soup we would use a positive number.

Now, we need to know the soup's temperature. As long as the soup is hotter than the air in the freezer we will have a non-zero dQ.
Lets assume the soup is 90 degrees C. We need to convert that into an absolute scale, lets choose Kelvin.

T = 90 C + 273 = 363 K

Now we have all the information needed to calculate the change of entropy

dS = -50 / 363

dS = -0.14

Clearly that is a decrease of entropy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I guess I'm still getting my head around this. My argument is that the soup in the freezer is an example of a decrease in the increase, or the slowing of the increase in entropy, and not the decrease of entropy (which amounts to a reversal, or order from disorder). But now that I think about it that sounds wrong, because I believe that with the decrease of energy does come a greater degree of order/less randomness.

So what I arrive at is that entropy is a non-issue, because a total lack of randomness still doesn't amount to intelligent information...

Entropy is a first order differential equation. It's not like acceleration (second order). You can't have a decrease of an increase when youre talking about entropy. First order systems can only be decreasing or increasing, or remaining constant.

Evolution is rightfully argued as the decrease of entropy of a system. The system being defined as humanity.

Also, from a chemical standpoint entropy is only 1/2 the equation.

Spontaneous processes are defined by the change in enthalpy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_process

ccb056 wrote:You can't have a decrease of an increase when youre talking about entropy. First order systems can only be decreasing or increasing, or remaining constant.

Mathematically incorrect. Consider the first-order ODE dy/dx = -x, evaluated at some negative value of x (therefore, y is increasing). Taking another derivative, d2y/dx2 = -1, shows the increase in y is decreasing at a rate of 1.

The same is true for entropy, noting that each derivative here is in terms of t. dS = dQ/T. So d2S = (d2Q*T - dQdT)/T^2 by quotient rule. You can easily have a decrease in the increase, an increase in the decrease, etc.

Now, Thorne is wrong about the decrease-of-the-increase, or at least he could be, depending on the efficiency of the freezer in question and so on. The "system", if by "system" you mean only the inside of the freezer or only the bowl of soup, is decreasing in entropy. But the environment will experience an increase in entropy accordingly. (The freezer's 50% thermal efficiency means the other 50% of its wattage is turned into excess heat.)

Lothar is correct there.

--------

Just to clarify, entropy is still determined by the first-order term.

E.g. \"entropy increasing, but the rate/speed is slowing down\" is still an increasing entropy.

dS = dQ/T. So d2S = (d2Q*T - dQdT)/T^2

I agree, thanks for the correction

Also, after thinking about it a little more it makes even more sense.

Since the soup is not producing heat, it makes sense that dQ/T approaches 0 and for dQ/T to change d2S cannot be 0.

Now if you math majors would silently correct the engineers we wouldn't look so bad.

So you can but it isn't!

Foil wrote:...Here we go...

Jesus Freak wrote:From a 5 min inspection, I can already give him my approval because he bases his science off the Bible.

JF, you're absolutely right that a Christian's belief about origins and the nature of our universe should have their foundations in the Bible, foremost being the belief that God is the original Creator.

The problem is that young-Earth creationists like Hovind and Ken Ham and others are reading their own interpretations into scripture. First and foremost, they have utterly lost the truth of Genesis 1 by reading the passages through their own perspective on science. It's not only that they look at science with an agenda (which causes all kinds of issues), the problem stems from fundamentally bad exegetical interpretation, where nothing is true unless every word has a dual literal meaning.

Foil, my father did a root-word literal translation of Genesis 1 using the original text. It's much more specific as to what actually happened than our English translation. If you would like, I can get the translation from my Dad and post it here. I also have a powerpoint slide presentation that is quite interesting, but it doesn't focus specifically on creation.

I have become confused.

Has the argument shifted from evolution to the validity of the bible and its various translations with respect to historical and scientific accuracy?

Foil wrote:
And, yes, Chaos, the entropy in the system (the entire freezer, or kitchen if you consider a slightly larger system) may still be increasing. That's exactly the point - local decreases in entropy in an open system can happen, but the overall entropy in a closed system must increase. (Again, note that the Earth is not a closed system, we get tons of energy from the Sun, so its entropy can and does decrease.)

excellent point

Foil wrote: And, yes, Chaos, the entropy in the system (the entire freezer, or kitchen if you consider a slightly larger system) may still be increasing. That's exactly the point - local decreases in entropy in an open system can happen, but the overall entropy in a closed system must increase. (Again, note that the Earth is not a closed system, we get tons of energy from the Sun, so its entropy can and does decrease.)

Foil,

The change of entropy all depends on what and when you define the system.

If you system is a bowl of hot soup, and it is in a cold freezer, the change in entropy is negative.

If your system is the outside of a freezer, and inside the freezer is a hot bowl of soup then the change in entropy is positive.

If your system is the bowl of soup and it is cold, the same temperature as the freezer than there is no change in entropy.

You cannot measure the amount of entopy something has, you can only measure the change of entropy between one state to another (how much is gained or lost).